Category Archives: Fritz Lang

Power functions and the mean relative frequency of shot scales in motion pictures

UPDATE (26 October 2009): This post has been getting a lot of traffic recently, and I think it is important to point the reader in the direction of a follow up post (here) where I point out that while the use of rank-frequency plots is useful for analysing film style (see here, for example) the power laws approach is not. This is not to say that films or groups of films will not be described by a non-linear power model, but other non-linear models (logarithmic, exponential) are also evident and there does not seem to be any general rule for which model can be applied to specific types of films (e.g. genres, eras, etc.). In general, a power laws approach to the distribution of shot scales is not going to get you anywhere – certainly not to the extent that I suggest in this post. I’ll leave this post here because there is still some useful information, and it’s also nice to see how wrong you can be.

Power functions describe a wide range of social phenomena, from the distributions of city size to the popularity of websites, the citations of academic papers, and the frequency of words in the corpus of a language (Schroeder 1991: 33-38, 103-119; Newman 2005). While power functions have been used for over half a century in analysing language and communication (e.g. Zipf’s law) they have yet to be applied to the empirical analysis of film style. This brief survey looks at the applicability of power functions in describing the distribution of the mean relative frequency of shot scales in the films of two directors – Alfred Hitchcock and Fritz Lang – whose careers encompass both European and Hollywood filmmaking.

Data on the frequency of shot scales was collected from the Cinemetrics database. Seven shot scales were used – big close-up, close-up, medium close-up, medium shot, medium-long shot, long shot, and very long shot (see Salt 2006). The relative frequency of shot scales in a motion picture was calculated by dividing the frequency with which each scale occurred by its normalising value (~500), and this data was then ranked from the event of the highest frequency to the lowest. The average value of the seven ordered relative frequencies was taken to give the mean relative frequency of each shot scale, thereby removing the problem of films that have zero frequency for a particular shot size. This data was then used to calculate predicted values for linear regression (f(x) = ax+b, where a is the slope and b is the intercept of the regression line) and power regression (f(x) = cxα, where c is a constant equal to the frequency of the most frequently occurring scale and α is the exponent of the distribution such that Σ f(x) = 1). The coefficient of determination (R2) was used as a measure of goodness-of-fit for the predicted mean relative frequencies to the empirically observed values.

Data on shot scales was taken from the Cinemetrics database for 43 films directed by Alfred Hitchcock between 1925 and 1963, of which 23 were produced in the UK between 1925 and 1939; and from 21 films directed by Fritz Lang between 1919 and 1955, of which 11 were produced in Germany between 1919 and 1933. The results are presented in Table 1, and show that power regression provides the better model only for Lang’s German films, while for the other classes the linear model is superior. These results can be seen clearly in Figures 1-4, in which the observed values and the linear and power regression lines are plotted on linear axes. (The power regression line is straight when the log rank is plotted against the log frequency).

Table 1 Linear and power regression for the films of Alfred Hitchcock and Fritz Lang

MRFTable1

Table 1 also shows that while the distribution of the mean relative frequencies of shot scales in the films of Alfred Hitchcock are consistent for his British and Hollywood films, there is a change in Lang’s style in his shift from Germany to Hollywood. It is also worth noting the similarity in the figures of R2 for both linear and power regression for Hitchcock’s and Lang’s Hollywood films, which suggests that both filmmakers are working within a consistent institutional style (such as classical Hollywood cinema) rather than auteurist idiosyncrasies. The value c is the mean relative frequency with a rank of 1, and this too is similar for Hitchcock and Lang’s Hollywood films, reinforcing the idea of an institutional style. This does not, however, account for why Hitchcock’s British films are so similar to his Hollywood movies. It is possible that German cinema in the 1920s was different from British and Hollywood cinema in general, and that British films style was influenced by Hollywood, but a larger scale study is needed to resolve these questions.

Hitchcock British

Figure 1 Linear and power regression for the mean relative frequency (MRF) of shot scales in Alfred Hitchcock British films, 1925-1939

Hitchcock Hollywood

Figure 2 Linear and power regression for the mean relative frequency (MRF) of shot scales in Alfred Hitchcock’s Hollywood films, 1940-1963

Lang Germany

Figure 3 Linear and power regression for the mean relative frequency (MRF) of shot scales in Fritz Lang’s German films, 1919-1933

Lang Hollywood

Figure 4 Linear and power regression for the mean relative frequency (MRF) of shot scales in Fritz Lang’s Hollywood films, 1936-1956

Table 1 also shows that while the distribution of the mean relative frequencies of shot scales in the films of Alfred Hitchcock are consistent for his British and Hollywood films, there is a change in Lang’s style in his shift from Germany to Hollywood. It is also worth noting the similarity in the figures of R2 for both linear and power regression for Hitchcock’s and Lang’s Hollywood films, which suggests that both filmmakers are working within a consistent institutional style (such as classical Hollywood cinema) rather than auteurist idiosyncrasies. The value c is the mean relative frequency with a rank of 1, and this too is similar for Hitchcock and Lang’s Hollywood films, reinforcing the idea of an institutional style. This does not, however, account for why Hitchcock’s British films are so similar to his Hollywood movies. It is possible that German cinema in the 1920s was different from British and Hollywood cinema in general, and that British films style was influenced by Hollywood, but a larger scale study is needed to resolve these questions.

This survey has shown that while power functions can be used to describe the distribution of mean relative frequencies of shot scales in motion pictures, they cannot be applied universally and linear functions may provide a better means of modelling film style. These distributions may be used as a measure of film style in order to distinguish between different groups of films. However, this approach cannot tell us what changes in the use of shot scales have occurred. It is necessary, then, to look more closely at where the continuities and discontinuities lie. As I have shown elsewhere, in there is a shift in the use of particular shot scales in the films in the films of Hitchcock and Lang when they arrive in Hollywood (Redfern 2009, unpublished). For both directors we find that there is a shift from distant shots to closer framing. Armed with the knowledge that different regression models explain the distribution of the mean relative frequencies of shot scales for Hitchcock and Lang prior to their arrival in Hollywood, we can extend this argument to state that: (1) Hitchcock’s Hollywood films feature closer framing than his British films, but there is no change in the distribution of the mean relative frequencies of the scale overall; and, (2) Lang’s Hollywood films feature a large change in the distribution of the mean relative frequencies as well as a shift to closer framing. In Lang’s German films it is the long shot that dominates, while in his Hollywood films there is no single shot scale that determines the films’ style.

References

Newman, M.E.J. (2005) Power laws, Pareto distributions, and Zipf’s law, Contemporary Physics 46 (5): 323-351.

Redfern, N. (2009) Shot scales in the films of Fritz Lang.

Redfern, N. (unpublished) Cinemetric analysis of shot types in the films of Alfred Hitchcock.

Salt, B. (2006) Moving into Pictures: More on Film History, Style, and Analysis. London: Starwood.

Schroeder, M. (1991) Fractals, Chaos, and Power Laws: Minutes from an Infinite Paradise. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.

Advertisements

Shot scales in the films of Fritz Lang

Fritz Lang’s career spans both European and Hollywood filmmaking, and the coming of sound cinema. We may ask of Lang’s films which of these changes impacted on his style – if, indeed, they had any impact at all; and this study explores this question by analysing the frequency of shot scales in the films of Lang in two contexts: (1) the frequency of shot scales is analysed by country; and (2), the frequency of shot scales is examined in light of the shift from silent filmmaking to sound.

Methods

Data on shot scales was taken from Barry Salt’s database (Salt n.d.), and was sorted by country of registration (either Germany or the US) and if the film was silent or sound.  Salt defines seven shot scales – big close-up (BCU), close-up (CU), medium close-up (MCU), medium shot (MS), medium long shot (MLS), long shot (LS), and very long shot (VLS) – and this data is normalised to the figure that would have occurred if the film was made up of 500 shots (see Salt 2006).

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were carried out using PAST v1.89 for Windows, and the frequency of shot scales in the German and US films was analysed using a Mann-Whitney U test. A two-tailed P-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

A total of 22 feature films directed by Fritz Lang were selected from Salt’s database, of which 11 were produced in Germany between 1919 and 1933 (including nine silent films between 1919 and 1928) and 11 were produced in the US between 1936 and 1956 (see Table 1).

Table 1 Sample of films directed by Fritz Lang (n = 22)

table-1

There is a significant difference between the German and US films for the number of close-ups (U = 25.5, P = 0.0235), medium close-ups (U = 3.5, P = 0.0002), medium shots (U = 3, P = 0.0002): the frequency of these shot scales is greater in the US films. There is also a significant difference in the number of long shots (U = 3, P = 0.0002) and very long shots (U = 22.5, P = 0.0138), the frequency of which are greater in the German films. There is no significant difference in the number of big close-ups (U = 54, P = 0.6936) and medium long shots (U = 44.5, P = 0.3088). The differences in sample medians for shot scales are represented in Figure 1. Overall, these results indicate a shift in the style of Lang’s films, with the US films typically using closer framing than the German films.

figure-1

Figure 1 Sample medians for shot scales (normalised per 500 shots) in the films of Fritz Lang by country

In comparing Lang’s silent films (n = 9) with his sound films (n = 13) from the same sample, there are significant differences between the frequency of medium close-ups (U = 14.5, P = 0.0037), medium shots (U = 4, P = 0.0003), and long shots (U = 9, P = 0.0011). The same trend over time that is evident in the shift from Germany to Hollywood is evident, with an increase in the number tighter shots and a decrease in long shots with the transition from silent to sound. In contrast, close-ups (U = 38.5, P = 0.1929) and very long shots (U = 30, P = 0.0615) are not significantly different when Lang’s films are divided into the categories of silent and sound films, while they are significant when divided by country. There are no significant differences in the number of big close-ups (U = 37, P = 0.1608) and medium long shots (U = 55, P = 0.8412), and this is consistent with the results above. Figure 2 presents the differences in sample medians for these categories.

figure-2

Figure 2 Sample medians for shot scales (normalised per 500 shots) in the silent and sound films of Fritz Lang

Discussion

The shift towards tighter framing in Lang’s Hollywood era is consistent with changes in the frequency of shot scales of other filmmakers who have spent part of their career in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s and part in Hollywood from the 1930s to the 1960s (Redfern unpublished). This indicates that this change may be a fundamental difference between the industrial contexts of European and Hollywood cinema in terms of shot scales, and the decrease in very long shots and the increase in close-ups support this conclusion. However, for medium close-ups, medium shots, and long shots this argument is less clear cut as the move to tighter framing may also be considered a result of the development of sound film rather than a change in industry. Lang directed only two sound films in Germany before moving to France for Liliom (1934) and then onto Hollywood, and the limited amount of data this affords poses an obstacle in determining whether industry or technology is the decisive factor for this change. A broader study of filmmakers who made a greater number of silent and sound films in Europe and Hollywood (e.g. Alfred Hitchcock, Max Ophuls, Ernst Lubitsch, etc.) is needed to explore this issue. Unfortunately, the flow of filmmakers has been in the one direction from East to West, and so identifying American filmmakers who move to Europe at this time and could provide further data for comparison is extremely difficult.

The medium long shot is consistent in all categories and is not a distinctive indicator of film style. This result is consistent with other findings that show medium scale shots can be invariant (Redfern unpublished). Unlike other shot scales that have been subject to critical attention (especially close-ups), the use of medium scale shots (MS, MLS) is at present little understood in film studies and there is no theoretical context in which this result may be interpreted.

The use of BCUs by Lang is also independent of industrial and/or technological contexts but occurs infrequently, and is probably motivated by the specific formal and aesthetic needs of a particular film rather than being an indicator of a particular style.

References

Redfern, N. (unpublished) Cinemetric analysis of shot types in the films of Alfred Hitchcock.

Salt, B. (n.d.) http://www.cinemetrics.lv/saltdb.php, accessed 18 February 2009.

Salt, B. (2006) Moving into Pictures: More on Film History, Style, and Analysis. London: Starwood.